Binance.US Refusing the SEC’s request for a restraining order
Binance.US responded to the SEC’s petition by arguing that the regulator’s request should be refused.
Binance argued against the SEC’s request for a temporary restraining order against the firm, previously known as BAM Trading, because it would have “destructive consequences,” including a negative impact on the platform’s capacity to pay for a defence.
The American subsidiary of Binance (BAM) recently filed documents claiming that the regulator still needs to identify a single security trading on its platform. In addition to harming BAM’s consumers, the requested restraining order would put the firm out of business, making it impossible for BAM to mount a defence in this case.
Binance said that the SEC’s petition is “riddled with mistakes” and omissions that lead to an unfair conclusion that BAM customers’ funds are “not secure.”
On December 17, 2020, BAM Trading received a subpoena that would require the company to provide documents and answer more questions for more than two years.
Binance allegedly submitted many informal written and spoken requests for the probe. There were almost 700,000 messages generated by the firm during the time in question, with roughly 11,391 emails, 8,196 email attachments, and 652,817 other messages being the most prominent examples.
The crypto exchange’s complaint regarding SEC cooperation was identical to its competitors, highlighting the SEC’s lack of direction.
Coinbase’s chief legal officer Paul Grewal shared the company’s displeasure. The executive said that the SEC’s lack of reaction or counterproposal was to blame for Coinbase’s inability to get a registration after months of talks.